No. 90-0941 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Jan 23, 1991

PER CURIAM.

REVERSED. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in denying its discovery requests of the appellee. See United States v. Denaro, 647 F. Supp. 112" date_filed="1986-11-11" court="S.D. Fla." case_name="United States v. Denaro">647 F.Supp. 112 (S.D.Fla.1986); and United States v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287" date_filed="1986-01-03" court="5th Cir." case_name="UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Davis BALLARD, Defendant-Appellant">779 F.2d 287 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109" date_filed="1986-04-07" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Matchett v. Chicago Council of Lawyers">475 U.S. 1109, 106 S.Ct. 1518, 89 L. Ed. 2d 916" date_filed="1986-04-07" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Pecic v. United States">89 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986). We disagree with appellant that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on the alleged fraudulent transfers but we agree that any trial or further proceedings after discovery should be conducted in accord with section 56.29, Florida Statutes (1987). See Treated Timber Prods., Inc. v. S & A Assoc., Inc., 488 So. 2d 159" date_filed="1986-05-14" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." case_name="Treated Timber Products, Inc. v. S & A Associates, Inc.">488 So.2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

ANSTEAD, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
© 2024 Midpage AI does not provide legal advice. By using midpage, you consent to our Terms and Conditions.